Medical workflows are increasingly implemented by incorporating a plurality of (e.g., data-processing) devices, e.g., computer-aided imaging modes such as computer tomographs or magnetic resonance tomographs, and also specialized computer systems. To support these complex workflows, a plurality of specialized (e.g., software) applications has developed with functional scopes that to some extent overlap and to some extent complement each other.
In addition to the conventional static data processing devices such as reporting stations, for example, compact mobile devices such as smartphones and tablet computers are also being employed to an increasing extent in medical practice, resulting in a further diversification of the applications and application variants to be provided.
These circumstances result in a user frequently changing application and/or device in the course of processing a medical workflow. However, a change in application or device of this type may be associated with a perceptible loss of efficiency (and therefore processing time), particularly as the user, following a change of this type, cannot as a rule continue directly at the point at which he previously exited the workflow. It is rather the case that the data linked to the workflow constantly has to be retrieved and loaded again. Furthermore, as a rule the settings of the respective application have to be set again to the requirements of the respective user and the workflow to be processed. Additionally, there is a risk, in the case of changes of application and device, of working results being lost because they are not properly stored and/or are not available promptly or correctly in the new application or the new device respectively.
A further problem that likewise results in losses in efficiency in medical workflows consists in the fact that the various applications and devices used in a workflow regularly require different operating methods and display a different operating behavior (that is to say a different response to comparable user interactions). Different applications therefore regularly have a different ‘look & feel’. Consequently the user regularly has to operate different applications (including identically named applications on different devices) differently, which represents a high learning cost and causes operating errors.
A cause of the problems described in the foregoing includes the fact that applications and application variants largely have to be created independently of each other since the specific requirements for the various medical tasks, but also the various form factors of the devices used, stand in the way of a greater integration of medical software solutions.
The form factor may be characterized in this regard by the screen area and resolution available on a device that, in the case of the devices employed (such as workstations with a plurality of screens on the one hand and smartphones on the other), is extremely varied and consequently requires different solutions in the structuring of applications and their user interfaces.
As a rule, modern medical applications are constructed with multiple layers and therefore organized horizontally. Thus, in the case of an application of this type, the presentation logic that defines the user interface (UI) is separated from the so-called business logic (BL), e.g., the logic directed toward the actual task of the application.
An established paradigm for structuring applications with a graphical user interface is, furthermore, the so-called Model View ViewModel (MVVM) concept. According to this concept, the “view”, that is to say the graphical elements on the user interface, is separated from the functioning of the user interface (the UI logic, also referred to as the “ViewModel”). This in turn is separated from the “Model”, e.g., the data access layer for the payload data that is displayed to a user and processed. The ViewModel therefore represents an intermediary between the “View” and the “Model”. The paradigms described above do indeed simplify, in general terms, the creation of applications, e.g., its high-level work component, yet do not offer any satisfactory solutions for the dilemma outlined above. Namely, on the one hand simple operation and creation of the many and varied medical applications and application variants may be made possible (which traditionally may only be achieved via the greatest possible standardization of the various applications and application variants). But, on the other hand, an individual adaptation of these applications and application variants to the respective purpose and the devices used has to be provided (which traditionally necessitates a diversification of the applications and application variants and therefore renders application operation and creation more difficult).